Perioperative nutrition in malnourished surgical cancer patients - a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical...

Malnourished surgical patients are supposed to benefit from perioperative nutrition. It is unclear, however, whether enteral intervention really surpasses the parenteral one, and whether the modification of standard formula matters. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical value of the route and type of perioperative nutritional support.

A group of 167 malnourished patients (91 M, 76 F, mean age 61.4 years) operated between June 2001 and December 2008 was randomly assigned during postoperative period to four groups according to nutritional intervention: enteral and parenteral, standard or immunomodulating. All patients received parenteral nutrition before surgery for 14 days, which provided homogenous groups for the postoperative evaluation. The trial was designed to test the hypothesis that enteral nutrition and/or immunonutrition can reduce the incidence of postoperative complications.

The incidence of individual complications was comparable among all four groups (p > 0.05). Infectious complications occurred in 23 of 84 patients with standard diets and in 20 of 83 patients receiving immunomodulatory formula (odds ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.69). There were no significant differences in infectious complications' ratio in patients receiving enteral (24/84 patients) and parenteral formulas (19/83 patients). Neither immunomodulating formulas nor enteral feeding significantly affected the length of hospitalization, overall morbidity and mortality rates.

Results demonstrated that postoperative nutritional intervention generates comparable results regardless of the route and formula used and that preoperative intervention is of the utmost importance. The study was registered in the Clinical Trials Database - number: NCT 00558155.